Quote:Perhaps as a way to claw back some of the cost of death penalty we could harvest their organs and sell on the market.

It's funny how they rack up the cost in capital cases, compared to other ones. Almost as if halfassing the law in general is ok.
"As long as we're limiting the sentences to putting them in boxes with criminals, let's not go the full mile on these cases guys. It's expensive."

"Throughout history, every mystery, ever solved, has turned out to be; Not magic."

(31-03-2017 06:49 PM)tomilay Wrote: I have already pointed out that some cases are cut and dry and I feel like the culprits ought to pay for it; in fact preferably right there on the spot without due process. But I understand and am sympathetic to the arguments against it. Most death sentence cases have nothing approaching this level of clarity.

Putting it more simply and specifically then, would you agree that this killer deserves the death sentence? Or would you still grant him the benefit of the doubt—in spite of the indisputable evidence? And what would you suggest as an appropriate sentence—do you think that the state of Victoria's mandatory 30-year "life" sentence is adequate for a six-times murderer? The bloke's only 26 now, which means he could be back on the streets when he's only in his early 50s. Is that fair on the victims' families. I don't think so.

(31-03-2017 12:18 PM)adey67 Wrote: Given the maggot infested food and uber violence in U.S. prisons tbh the death penalty seems like a breeze. But seriously, absolutely no to the death penalty its pure vindictiveness and nothing to do with justice.

You are correct, of course. I admit, with a sense of shame, that this is precisely why I want people who commit the most violent crimes (such as my example of the man who sodomized a 4 year old child to death) to die if there is absolutely no doubt of guilt. I know it doesn't deter, I know it's costly, and I know it's uncivilized, but it's what he deserves. This isn't a sentiment I enjoy feeling, but it is my sentiment nonetheless.

As for fallacies in our justice system, I know those are numerous and slanted against the poor, minorities, and the mentally ill. The book "Convicting the Innocent " is an excellent resource for understanding this, and was part of what shifted my opinion away from pro-death penalty to "only is cases where guilt is absolutely certain". I don't feel great about it, and my rational mind knows it isn't right, but I can't switch off the emotional reaction.

I'm curious, for everyone who is opposed due to cost and risk of killing an innocent, does your opinion change if cost is equal to life in prison and there is no doubt of the person's guilt?

(31-03-2017 06:49 PM)tomilay Wrote: I have already pointed out that some cases are cut and dry and I feel like the culprits ought to pay for it; in fact preferably right there on the spot without due process. But I understand and am sympathetic to the arguments against it. Most death sentence cases have nothing approaching this level of clarity.

Putting it more simply and specifically then, would you agree that this killer deserves the death sentence? Or would you still grant him the benefit of the doubt—in spite of the indisputable evidence? And what would you suggest as an appropriate sentence—do you think that the state of Victoria's mandatory 30-year "life" sentence is adequate for a six-times murderer? The bloke's only 26 now, which means he could be back on the streets when he's only in his early 50s. Is that fair on the victims' families. I don't think so.

If he was in a jurisdiction with it, sure, he'd deserve it. 30 years sounds pretty lenient. Don't they have a life without parole kind of sentence?

If not they should probably consider exporting such prisoners to a third world prison. Save on costs.

Here is one in Brazil.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg

(31-03-2017 09:55 PM)beeglez Wrote: As for fallacies in our justice system, I know those are numerous and slanted against the poor, minorities, and the mentally ill. The book "Convicting the Innocent " is an excellent resource for understanding this, and was part of what shifted my opinion away from pro-death penalty to "only is cases where guilt is absolutely certain". I don't feel great about it, and my rational mind knows it isn't right, but I can't switch off the emotional reaction.

I'm curious, for everyone who is opposed due to cost and risk of killing an innocent, does your opinion change if cost is equal to life in prison and there is no doubt of the person's guilt?

Given that the system is inherently unequal we must err on the side of caution. Much like with the 24 style terrorist with vital information and a ticking bomb the rule should never be written for the exception but rather for the rule. I am a fan of the Norwegian example, Anders Behring Breivik is not in a hellhole for the rest of his life but the average Norwegian convict has a much lower recidivism rate than our Eye for an Eye system of revenge. Overall for societies benefit it's better to not extract every ounce of vengeance on the few people we know beyond a shadow of a doubt did the horrible thing.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote: America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense

(31-03-2017 04:23 AM)BackSlider Wrote: Well you don't, but at least these souls are still alive and living a quite content existence. (or so I'm under the impression that these "patients" do live a pleasant minded life.)

First off, kudos to Free Thought and Szuchow for getting the Dragon Age reference.

^ Cheers motherfuckers, you guys rock. ^

So, lemme explain that for those who didn't get it. Dragon Age is a fantasy game series created by Bioware (Knight of the Old Republic, Jade Empire, Mass Effect). One of the defining characteristic of this game's universe is the concept of the Fade, an alternate world parallel to but separate from our own world. Everyone has some connection to the Fade, and it is where your mind wanders when you sleep; it is where you go when you dream. It is a rather formless and malleable realm where imagination can change reality. It is this connection to the Fade that is the source of emotions and inspiration. Yes, this fantasy universe has magic, spirits, and mind-body duality, roll with it. Those with a stronger connection to the Fade can harness that connection to cast spells, making them Mages. It's not a skill that can be taught, but rather is a trait that mostly runs in bloodlines and manifests unexpectedly in adolescence, giving it a sort of X-Men/mutant vibe.

This realm is also the home to spirits who embody aspects of humanity, and are often divided by human observers into those representing virtues (valor, justice, love, etc.) and those representing sins (sloth, lust, pride, etc.). Not everyone agrees with these classifications and distinctions, such as the Dalish Elves; in effect, these are not absolute truths, but rather just our attempts to put the things of the Fade int their own little boxes (and other peoples use different boxes or none at all). These spirits cannot cross over from the Fade into our world on their own, but many (especially those in the later category) desire to. While they might attempt to ensnare passing dreamers, more often their ticket to our world is a Mage. Whether summoned by a sufficiently powerful Mage, or attempting to overwhelm the psyche of a Mage traveling in the Fade (think of astral projection by means of a waking dream) and possessing their body as a host vessel. Such a combination, a Mage possessed by a spirit, is called an Abomination. They are incredibly powerful beings and, being both a Mage of considerable power combined with one of the often more malicious Fade spirits (such as a Lust or Pride demon), results in a terrifyingly powerful being. Such things are to be guarded against at all costs, insofar as the Chantry is concerned.

This is the part where religion enters the picture. The predominant human religion of Dragon Age is the Chantry. If it helps you make connect the pieces, they're a fairly obvious Roman Catholic Church analogue. As for what we need here, the religion's founding martyr (Andraste, Bride of the Maker) had an edict that stated "Magic should serve man, not rule over him". Considering that Andraste lead a rebellion in her time against the forces of the Tevinter Imperium, an empire ruled by powerful demon summoning human Mages, one can understand the point. Skip ahead thousands of years to the settings present time (in the games), and you have edict codified into two institutions; the Circle of Magi and the Templar Order. The circles are where Mages are taken to study and be brought up as proper Andrastians, under the ever watchful eyes of the Templars. Think of it like Hogwarts or Xavier's School for Gifted Children (the X-Men mansion), except admittance is compulsory and you are under Big Brother levels of surveillance and scrutiny, and it comes prepackaged with religion. The Templars are a knightly order under direct control of the Chantry, and their main role is to watch over and police the mages; but also hunting down apostates (mages outside the circle), bringing recently manifesting children to the circles, or anything else involving magic and it's potential danger. They are more than just a knightly order, being especially trained to counter and nullify magic, making them ideal mage killers if needed.

In the Circles mages undergo training, and among that study is learning how to protect themselves from the spirits of the Fade. This eventually culminates in a right-of-passage called the Harrowing, where the prospective apprentice is thrust into the Fade and pitted against a Demon who desires to posses them. Pass the Harrowing and you are considered a full mage in good standing. Then, depending on the particular politics of each circle, you can potentially have access to more freedoms and less restrictions now that you need no longer fear being possessed against your will. However failing to defeat the Demon can lead to possession; this is why the Harrowing is overseen by entire contingent of Templars, ready to strike down the mage at the slightest sign of corruption. Failing to defeat the Demon but not being possessed is also considered a failed Harrowing, and the outcome in this case is the Rite of Tranquility.

A mage's connection to the Fade is the source of their spell casting abilities, in addition to every human's desires and emotions; but it is a two way passage that can allow spirits to possess the Mage. In order to safe guard everyone else form the potential possession of a Mage unable to guarantee their own protection, that connection to the Fade is severed; the process of which is the Rite of Tranquility. The resulting Mage is thereafter refereed to as Tranquil. They are emotionless, and while not entirely free of desire (they still have self preservation, they still eat), they lack all inspiration. They become incredible thinkers, with a calmness of mind not normally possible, and being entirely detached from emotional entanglements. They continue to serve vital roles within the circle they live, but outside of any spell casting capacity. They cease to be themselves, as many of the crucial aspects that make up themselves (and factor into the identity of self and self actualization) are destroyed in the process. Many Mages view this fate as worth than death itself, preferring nonexistence to the prospect of having your very self butchered in such a way.

Some see this as a necessary evil, a means to protect the masses from potentially horrific danger. But to many of the Mages themselves, it is itself a horrifying prospect. Being born with a ability you did not ask for, potentially take from your parents against your will at a young age, to get thrown into a fight for life or death against a demon in the Fade; and if you fuck it up, they sever your connection to the Fade, and in the processes destroy who you are. This process is, for all intents and purposes (and without getting into spoilers), permanent. So the Rite of Tranquility is seen as a last resort, only to be used on those who cannot protect themselves. Any Mage who passes their Harrowing cannot be made Tranquil, the Rite is not to be used punitively. But, of course, that is not always how things worked. In some circles (and the one in the city of Kirkwall in particular), Templars pushed this boundary and crossed it. In asserting their authoritarian control they started to abuse the Rite of Tranquility to silence dissent among the circle. This of course only created more push back, leading to an escalation of tensions that eventually exploded in a rebellion that sundered the very Chantry itself.

^ "Can you cure a beheading?" ^

Now the primary justification of the use of such an extreme measure is the potential damage that can be wrought unintentionally by those unable to protect themselves from temptation and possession; with the abuse of such a powerful technique being the catalyst for a continent wide war of rebellion. Seeing as how even the worst sociopaths humanity has every churned out are entirely unable to sell their souls to Satan in exchange for reality altering powers, I think it makes any justification for forced lobotomies incredibly weaker in comparison; and it wasn't even on great footing to begin with in the fiction of Dragon Age.

So yeah. There are interesting parallels to be drawn between forced punitive lobotomies and the fictional Rite of Tranquility. One of the reasons I enjoy good fiction, as it allows you to explore the hypothetical in the safety of your imagination.

First off, kudos to Free Thought and Szuchow for getting the Dragon Age reference.

^ Cheers motherfuckers, you guys rock. ^

So, lemme explain that for those who didn't get it. Dragon Age is a fantasy game series created by Bioware (Knight of the Old Republic, Jade Empire, Mass Effect). One of the defining characteristic of this game's universe is the concept of the Fade, an alternate world parallel to but separate from our own world. Everyone has some connection to the Fade, and it is where your mind wanders when you sleep; it is where you go when you dream. It is a rather formless and malleable realm where imagination can change reality. It is this connection to the Fade that is the source of emotions and inspiration. Yes, this fantasy universe has magic, spirits, and mind-body duality, roll with it. Those with a stronger connection to the Fade can harness that connection to cast spells, making them Mages. It's not a skill that can be taught, but rather is a trait that mostly runs in bloodlines and manifests unexpectedly in adolescence, giving it a sort of X-Men/mutant vibe.

This realm is also the home to spirits who embody aspects of humanity, and are often divided by human observers into those representing virtues (valor, justice, love, etc.) and those representing sins (sloth, lust, pride, etc.). Not everyone agrees with these classifications and distinctions, such as the Dalish Elves; in effect, these are not absolute truths, but rather just our attempts to put the things of the Fade int their own little boxes (and other peoples use different boxes or none at all). These spirits cannot cross over from the Fade into our world on their own, but many (especially those in the later category) desire to. While they might attempt to ensnare passing dreamers, more often their ticket to our world is a Mage. Whether summoned by a sufficiently powerful Mage, or attempting to overwhelm the psyche of a Mage traveling in the Fade (think of astral projection by means of a waking dream) and possessing their body as a host vessel. Such a combination, a Mage possessed by a spirit, is called an Abomination. They are incredibly powerful beings and, being both a Mage of considerable power combined with one of the often more malicious Fade spirits (such as a Lust or Pride demon), results in a terrifyingly powerful being. Such things are to be guarded against at all costs, insofar as the Chantry is concerned.

This is the part where religion enters the picture. The predominant human religion of Dragon Age is the Chantry. If it helps you make connect the pieces, they're a fairly obvious Roman Catholic Church analogue. As for what we need here, the religion's founding martyr (Andraste, Bride of the Maker) had an edict that stated "Magic should serve man, not rule over him". Considering that Andraste lead a rebellion in her time against the forces of the Tevinter Imperium, an empire ruled by powerful demon summoning human Mages, one can understand the point. Skip ahead thousands of years to the settings present time (in the games), and you have edict codified into two institutions; the Circle of Magi and the Templar Order. The circles are where Mages are taken to study and be brought up as proper Andrastians, under the ever watchful eyes of the Templars. Think of it like Hogwarts or Xavier's School for Gifted Children (the X-Men mansion), except admittance is compulsory and you are under Big Brother levels of surveillance and scrutiny, and it comes prepackaged with religion. The Templars are a knightly order under direct control of the Chantry, and their main role is to watch over and police the mages; but also hunting down apostates (mages outside the circle), bringing recently manifesting children to the circles, or anything else involving magic and it's potential danger. They are more than just a knightly order, being especially trained to counter and nullify magic, making them ideal mage killers if needed.

In the Circles mages undergo training, and among that study is learning how to protect themselves from the spirits of the Fade. This eventually culminates in a right-of-passage called the Harrowing, where the prospective apprentice is thrust into the Fade and pitted against a Demon who desires to posses them. Pass the Harrowing and you are considered a full mage in good standing. Then, depending on the particular politics of each circle, you can potentially have access to more freedoms and less restrictions now that you need no longer fear being possessed against your will. However failing to defeat the Demon can lead to possession; this is why the Harrowing is overseen by entire contingent of Templars, ready to strike down the mage at the slightest sign of corruption. Failing to defeat the Demon but not being possessed is also considered a failed Harrowing, and the outcome in this case is the Rite of Tranquility.

A mage's connection to the Fade is the source of their spell casting abilities, in addition to every human's desires and emotions; but it is a two way passage that can allow spirits to possess the Mage. In order to safe guard everyone else form the potential possession of a Mage unable to guarantee their own protection, that connection to the Fade is severed; the process of which is the Rite of Tranquility. The resulting Mage is thereafter refereed to as Tranquil. They are emotionless, and while not entirely free of desire (they still have self preservation, they still eat), they lack all inspiration. They become incredible thinkers, with a calmness of mind not normally possible, and being entirely detached from emotional entanglements. They continue to serve vital roles within the circle they live, but outside of any spell casting capacity. They cease to be themselves, as many of the crucial aspects that make up themselves (and factor into the identity of self and self actualization) are destroyed in the process. Many Mages view this fate as worth than death itself, preferring nonexistence to the prospect of having your very self butchered in such a way.

Some see this as a necessary evil, a means to protect the masses from potentially horrific danger. But to many of the Mages themselves, it is itself a horrifying prospect. Being born with a ability you did not ask for, potentially take from your parents against your will at a young age, to get thrown into a fight for life or death against a demon in the Fade; and if you fuck it up, they sever your connection to the Fade, and in the processes destroy who you are. This process is, for all intents and purposes (and without getting into spoilers), permanent. So the Rite of Tranquility is seen as a last resort, only to be used on those who cannot protect themselves. Any Mage who passes their Harrowing cannot be made Tranquil, the Rite is not to be used punitively. But, of course, that is not always how things worked. In some circles (and the one in the city of Kirkwall in particular), Templars pushed this boundary and crossed it. In asserting their authoritarian control they started to abuse the Rite of Tranquility to silence dissent among the circle. This of course only created more push back, leading to an escalation of tensions that eventually exploded in a rebellion that sundered the very Chantry itself.

^ "Can you cure a beheading?" ^

Now the primary justification of the use of such an extreme measure is the potential damage that can be wrought unintentionally by those unable to protect themselves from temptation and possession; with the abuse of such a powerful technique being the catalyst for a continent wide war of rebellion. Seeing as how even the worst sociopaths humanity has every churned out are entirely unable to sell their souls to Satan in exchange for reality altering powers, I think it makes any justification for forced lobotomies incredibly weaker in comparison; and it wasn't even on great footing to begin with in the fiction of Dragon Age.

So yeah. There are interesting parallels to be drawn between forced punitive lobotomies and the fictional Rite of Tranquility. One of the reasons I enjoy good fiction, as it allows you to explore the hypothetical in the safety of your imagination.

Tl;dr version - Templar's bad.

And with Nazi theme in DA II - final solution, called there tranquil solution.

.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

(31-03-2017 09:55 PM)beeglez Wrote: I'm curious, for everyone who is opposed due to cost and risk of killing an innocent, does your opinion change if cost is equal to life in prison and there is no doubt of the person's guilt?

I'm all about putting someone down if they pose an immediate threat, and I wouldn't personally feel bad, or uncivilized (meaningless term) if someone were executed. But purely as a matter of cause/effect, given the assumed bigger picture reasoning behind said execution, I believe the pros don't outweigh the cons. it's not worth the sociological consequences.

(31-03-2017 07:40 PM)M. Linoge Wrote: "As long as we're limiting the sentences to putting them in boxes with criminals, let's not go the full mile on these cases guys. It's expensive."

Well, Arkansas seems determined to go the full mile these next few weeks. 8 within 10 days or so. The reason, the precious poisons reach their sell by date. Wouldn't want to waste them, since even big pharma is reluctant to sell for executions these days. Bad PR I guess.